noflashplease: Why are so many of Sony's FE lenses so very big, heavy and expensive? Weren't mirrorless lenses supposed to smaller, lighter and simpler, hence cheaper, than their DSLR counterparts?
@Wilight, I would be glad to tell Leica engineers that, because clearly the laws of physics don't prevent great small lenses on a mirrorless full frame. The same for Summicron lenses. Their lenses are "about" all of the things you mention, but I wouldn't diminish their sharpness in any way. Their little M lenses stand up to recent high res sensors very well, especially lenses designed in recent years.
You're right, the two SL lenses introduced so far are strangely large. We'll have to see whether the entire lens line is build like that, or whether some are closer to M size but with autofocus.
@vscd, Leica's longest M focal length is 135mm. That's because the frame lines for longer lenses would be too small in the viewfinder, and the viewing system isn't accurate enough for manual focus with longer focal lengths.
zlatko: The 24-70/2.8 is heavier than Canon's excellent 24-70/2.8 version II. And the 85/1.4 is heavier than Sigma's or Nikon's 85/1.4.
@vscd, For me the primary reason to buy a mirrorless camera is decreased system weight & size. That's always been the main attraction for me personally and the only reason to put up with the other compromises, such as worse ergonomics, slower operation, etc. I don't care for EVFs and find they present their own difficulties. I realize not everyone shares this view. So my feeling is that if a mirrorless system isn't delivering on decreased system weight & size, then it loses its primary selling point (for me). Maybe these lenses make up for their added weight by delivering superior performance. We'll have to wait and see.
vscd: It's nice to see something serious in glass from Sony but this marketing-BS like "[...]deliver unrivaled imaging experiences" is childish. Firstly they have to prove to come even close to the 70-200 L IS II from Canon or 70-200 from Nikon...
I know it's advertising, but please keep the feets on the ground. Unrivaled 85 f1.4? I can't believe Zeiss gave you the last few secrets to get close to the OTUS :)
The Sony FE 90mm macro now ranks something like 22nd for DxO score and 25th for sharpness. It's an excellent lens no doubt, but being "highest" was an accident of DxO's strange ranking system which is based on sensor resolution. The "highest" get reshuffled every time a sensor with more resolution is introduced.
@josseee, because the Nikon is heavier, which makes it even less appealing.
Sony 24-70/2.8 = 886gCanon 24-70/2.8 = 805g
Sony 85/1.4 = 820gSigma 85/1.4 for Sony = 725gNikon 85/1.4 = 595g
If the "law of physics" prevents Sony from making small lenses, then Leica has been breaking the law of physics for about 90 years. Their lenses are full frame but *very* small because of the shorter flange distance, and yet super high quality. Even if they added autofocus, their lenses would be much smaller than Sony's because the optics are small.
Adamant: Contrary to the many, many claims around here, I don't recall anyone saying that mirrorless cameras would automatically deliver significant reductions in lens size, beyond a small improvement in flange distance. Of course, the bodies can be smaller because there is no mirror box. And mirrorless certainly has certain advantages, like no front/back focus issues and always-on live view. But it should some as no surprise that this lens is large. You cannot change the laws of physics, Jim.
Small sensors obviously allow for smaller lenses, but that is independent of whether a camera is mirrorless.
@Adamant, How then is Leica able to change the laws of physics? Their entire M lens system is very small because of the shorter flange distance. Even if they added autofocus, their lenses would still be much smaller than Sony's.
photominion: Love the white color.. gives the small sized mirrorless this "in your face" look of a Canon (or classic Minolta DSLR if you must insist..)
I also find it funny how they weren't able to keep the weight down..It's always being stressed how Mirrorless (shorter flange distance) would allow for smaller and lighter lenses.
Leica achieves very high quality lenses that are very small because of the shorter flange distance. Sony chooses not to do that for some reason. Sony lenses are understandably bigger than Leica's due to autofocus, but they could be much smaller than they are. They don't need to be as big/heavy as DSLR lenses.
The 24-70/2.8 is heavier than Canon's excellent 24-70/2.8 version II. And the 85/1.4 is heavier than Sigma's or Nikon's 85/1.4.
Jonathan F/2: Definitely camera of the year! Go Canon!
@The Davinator, your replies have all been very condescending. Every one of them. You are just plain rude. What the camera is for is certainly relevant to the discussion. It will be excellent for its intended purpose. I am a working photographer and understand metering very well, thank you. Have read plenty about it. As I said, pushing the shadows is exactly what DPR are talking about. I quoted them!
@The Davinator, again read DPR's review of the A7RII, Part 6, titled "DR: ISO Invariance". Quoting DPR: "Examining what happens in the shadows allows you to assess the exposure latitude (essentially the dynamic range) of the Raw files." So, pushing the shadows is *exactly* what they are talking about. They are telling you they push the shadows to assess DR. Then look at the image crop they choose to select by default: it's shadows.
If someone’s photography depends on pushing shadows 3 to 6 stops, they left Canon long ago. Keep in mind that photographers dealt with the brightness range on Earth since the beginnings of photography and did very well without extraordinary shadow pushes. It’s not because they “didn’t understand metering” but because they understood it well.
The 1DX2 is a high speed camera that will excel for sports & photojournalism. The vast majority of 1DX2 buyers have no time or interest in shadow pushing exercises: they don’t need them to produce great photos.
@The Davinator, read DPReview's review of the A7RII, Part 6, titled "DR: ISO Invariance" where they push shadows +1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 stops. They seem to think DR has something to do with pushing shadows.
The Davinator: Any sensor improvements?
My point about the ADC is the this camera will have enough DR for the vast majority of its users, just as the 1DX did. The reason is that they push their files one or two stops *at most* — if they push at all. They don't do 3, 4, 5 or 6 stop pushes, and the phrase "ADC" is not in their vocabulary. That may be important for engineering, but it's not even a consideration for the vast majority of 1DX users. Think football, baseball, basketball, tennis, the Olympics. This camera will have plenty of DR for them. People who really want to do 3, 4, 5 or 6 stop pushes have presumably already switched to Sony/Nikon because that was never a Canon thing.
Buyers of this camera will do just fine with it, just as they did with its predecessor. There is plenty of amazing work done with the 1DX to prove that. The people who are "disappointed" with the ADC are clearly not the market for this camera. They are presumably Sony users.
It may well be the camera of the year for those who buy it. It won't be the camera of the year for those who want +5 stop shadow pushes. +5 stop shadow pushes seem to be super-important on the Internet now.
Buyers of this camera don't want to do +5 stop shadow pushes. It's not part of their workflow and their photos are fine without it.
Joed700: Okay, it's great to see something new from Canon. However, the fact that there is no mention of improvement in DR worries me. Also, this baby is $500 less that the Nikon D5 confirms my suspicion...Canon usually charge way more than Nikon....
This camera will have excellent dynamic range for its intended users. People who were happy with previous 1D series cameras aren't worried.
Mssimo: Does it still have 11 stops of dynamic range?
This camera will have excellent dynamic range for its intended users. It won't be enough for those who yearn to push their shadows 6 stops.
"But the copy-to-copy variation problem will, I think, take another generation to clear up." :(
Angrymagpie: Why can't we get sapphire crystal protective filter? My problem with existing protective filters is not that they are not tough enough, but they are not easy to clean without scratching them up. Sapphire crystal is not only extremely tough, it is also the most fool-proof thing to clean because it's near impossible to scratch it up.
I find the B+W filters to be very easy to clean. Their "MRC" coating seems to serve that purpose. I'm sure they're not as tough as these Sigma ceramics, but they don't scratch just from cleaning.